Jump to content


The Shadows of Albion .... and the guilt we carry.

Fairness Winning Having fun Guilt

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

Wombatmetal #21 Posted 08 October 2018 - 10:15 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1044 battles
  • 964
  • [H_PUN] H_PUN
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostPrenzlau, on 08 October 2018 - 01:25 PM, said:

 

    Using real life examples to explain a fictional video game. This game is not historical reality, and has nothing to do with it. This game is 100% controlled (or it should be) by the developers. Any imbalance is created whether on purpose or not. We are not simulating the reality of real life where there are so many unknown variables. 

 

We have two differences of opinions here. 

 

You believe that winning is secondary to getting crates and other personal goals.

 

I believe you play to win and then reap the rewards of your actions. 

 

Those who agree with Greg should never then criticize War Gaming about anything that has to do with wins, or winning because you would have to believe then that War Gaming took winning out as a factor, which is ridiculous since so many people raked in the wins like it was fall harvest.

 

Prenzlau

 

As long as my overall record is 50%, which it is, I'm not really concerned with wins. I hit my goal; winning doesn't drive me beyond that. As Lemmy says, "win some, lose some, it's all the same to me"

 

Though I gotta say I loved this weekend. I flew my He 111 a lot. Was lucky to get one. About 20 years ago for my birthday someone took me to see one. I climbed in and sat in the pilots seat, which is really weird with all that plexiglass around you. It was really cool, and now I have one, and I had a blast flying it. The wins had nothing to do with the fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Perco_lator #22 Posted 08 October 2018 - 10:26 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 11 battles
  • 680
  • Member since:
    08-15-2015

View PostZigfreid, on 08 October 2018 - 06:14 PM, said:

 

Gouldy we all know you just got off of the short bus.

 

 

 

Somebody has to drive the bus & keep Erd & all the rest of the windowlickers safe.

"Come find me in the game, tough guy.  We'll see who knows stuff."


Greg_Pattinson #23 Posted 08 October 2018 - 11:33 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 9468 battles
  • 167
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    06-02-2018

View PostPrenzlau, on 08 October 2018 - 09:16 PM, said:

This guy sort of sounds like me back when I would just put forth an argument just to irritate people.

I'm honestly not trying to irritate you or anyone else.  This is how I actually feel.  If you look at my content in my profile you will see a lot of my posts are advocating this exact thing.

 

There has to be some inherent standard of playability in which each side has a chance for victory.

There is a standard of playability and is the reason for any of the positive reviews of this mode.

 

If one side has less than a 10% chance and the other a 90% chance, how is that challenging for either side? 

I do not believe it was challenging for the attackers (90% side) at all.  That is why I wanted to play bomber and GA LESS and fighters more.  Only the 10% side is a challenge and that's the side I wanted to be on.

 

There is no overall "war" here and no long term objectives. Each battle is a microcosm in itself and the result means little afterward except to the human players who either lost or won. As the defenders, you got to bend over and take the loss while getting lovely consolation prizes and benefits, as you have described like not needing a win to get your crate. 

I do not see the crate as a consolation prize but as the objective itself.  The missions can not be completed in one battle so no battle stands alone.  It takes the actions within multiple battles to complete the objective.  The greater the action the less battles it takes so is more efficient at completing the objective.

 

This game has always been about personal objectives, working on your planes, getting new planes, working on that win rate, etc. This game is not war. It is temporary battles that mean little beyond the results except for who gets the spare parts and maybe bragging rights. 

These are 2 contradictory concepts.  You talk about personal objectives, working on your planes, getting new ones, or working on your win rate.  All of these things require multiple battles. and that's what it means beyond the individual battle result.

 

So if I lost 50 battles and won 3, I should cherish those 3 battles for they were worth fighting? Yup that would be rewarding, to win just a small amount of battles and just rationalize the massive losing away. The Charge of the Light Brigade!

Cest magnific, et ne pas de guerre.-Napoleon Bonaparte on the charge of the light brigade.  It means; its magnificent but it is not war.  If the British light dragoons had won their charge against the odds that they faced I would see the point of the reference but I don't understand what you are trying to get at here.  Another way for it to make sense would be if instead of just being slaughtered the light brigade got to repeat their charge again and again until they emerged victorious but that was real war with real consequences not just a game.

 

 I really want to understand your point of view, but I cannot. I see a flawed and imbalanced event as far as Bomber Escort goes and although I agree completely that individuals have profited and gained many things, overall the spirit of fair play and a challenging event for both sides has been botched. 

I do agree with this last statement. I don't think it was challenging for both sides. I think the best way to help you understand my point of view is say that it is merely the opposite of yours. You see that it was unfair for the defenders because the attackers always win.  I see that it was unfair for the attackers because they were not challenged enough.  Its two sides of the same coin.  While you were having fun and laughing about the easy wins. I was having fun on the loosing team because I was being challenged.  We both had fun just in different ways so we both benefited from this mode.  there is no reason for you to feel guilty about those wins either.  I chose to be on the defending side.  It was entirely consensual.  

 



CorvusCorvax #24 Posted 09 October 2018 - 12:02 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2003 battles
  • 1,877
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPerco_lator, on 08 October 2018 - 10:26 PM, said:

 

Somebody has to drive the bus & keep Erd & all the rest of the windowlickers safe.

 

I guess delusional could be added to retarded in your case...

 



Perco_lator #25 Posted 09 October 2018 - 12:09 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 11 battles
  • 680
  • Member since:
    08-15-2015

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 08 October 2018 - 08:02 PM, said:

 

I guess delusional could be added to retarded in your case...

 

 

And on cue Prenslow's helmet wearing little brother shows up.

"Come find me in the game, tough guy.  We'll see who knows stuff."


CorvusCorvax #26 Posted 09 October 2018 - 12:15 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2003 battles
  • 1,877
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I have to admit I had fun doing both sides.  I flew some solo, and got plenty of defense assignments.  That was fun, trying to rally team mates to not furball, but instead shoot down bombers, and protect the planes shooting down bombers.  One win on defense was me in my Do-335 shooting down those who were trying to shoot down the interceptors.  It was glorious fun.

 

One win on defense was pounding the heck out of bombers with my Me-262.  Almost like it was built to do just that.  :)

 

On attack, using my A-26 like a very, very heavy fighter.  It was very rewarding shooting down Me-410s and Spitfires.  I want to do that some more!

 

I had fun grinding my IL-2(t).  I am looking forward to getting the IL-8.  I had a blast flying in and out of the bomber stream with my RB-17.  I had put it aside for a while while I was grinding the German GAA line, but now I want to fly it again.

 

But the most fun I had was dropping the brakes and sitting behind the bombers in my Me-410, waiting out the heat cycle in my 30s just knocking down bomber after bomber, then dropping down and blowing up a Ju-88P or two, and Il-2(t) or three, then climbing up to the next bomber group.

 

Yes, for balance, the number of bombers that must get across should be 15 or 20.  WG could play with the number to find which number makes sense, and if the numbers need to be different at different tiers.  All they need to do is experiment some.  That's it.  It could be balanced with this one parameter.



CorvusCorvax #27 Posted 09 October 2018 - 12:16 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2003 battles
  • 1,877
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPerco_lator, on 09 October 2018 - 12:09 AM, said:

 

And on cue Prenslow's helmet wearing little brother shows up.

 

Safety first!

Prenzlau #28 Posted 09 October 2018 - 12:55 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6770 battles
  • 698
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostGreg_Pattinson, on 08 October 2018 - 05:33 PM, said:

 

 

    Seriously you had to go red and blue! Red is supposed to be reserved for WG personal only. So now I have to slog through this eye sore! Thanks.

 

I do not believe it was challenging for the attackers (90% side) at all. 

 

    The players who were on the attacking team still had to play and do their jobs. What I witnessed many times was bombers getting through for two reasons. First there was a lot on the plate for the defenders, they had to protect their AA guns and their caps, plus shoot down all those bombers who were shooting back, and then defend themselves against enemy fighters. That is a lot of bases to cover. Second, in many cases there was poor coordination and some players simply were out for their own goals and winning was not one of them. When you have players racking up hundreds of wins with single digit loses, something is very unbalanced there. 

 

I do not see the crate as a consolation prize but as the objective itself.  The missions can not be completed in one battle so no battle stands alone.  It takes the actions within multiple battles to complete the objective.  The greater the action the less battles it takes so is more efficient at completing the objective.

 

    What amazes me is that your so complacent with losing if it gets you the rewards you are after. I got my wins and still got my crates, so you could have both without losing a ton. If losing a ton of battles equals fun, then have at it, I will have fun winning those battles.

 

These are 2 contradictory concepts.  You talk about personal objectives, working on your planes, getting new ones, or working on your win rate.  All of these things require multiple battles. and that's what it means beyond the individual battle result.

 

    Actually there is no contradiction here. We do the same things, except I win and I like it and you lose and your ok with it.

 

Cest magnific, et ne pas de guerre.-Napoleon Bonaparte on the charge of the light brigade.  It means; its magnificent but it is not war.  If the British light dragoons had won their charge against the odds that they faced I would see the point of the reference but I don't understand what you are trying to get at here.  Another way for it to make sense would be if instead of just being slaughtered the light brigade got to repeat their charge again and again until they emerged victorious but that was real war with real consequences not just a game.

 

    Do you talk to yourself in the mirror and convince yourself that if you think you are "glorious" in battle then that is all that matters, win or lose? Hey the men who were at the Alamo could have won. Custer could have lived at Little Big Horn. I like alternative historical narrations as much as anyone. If role playing while your playing a fantasy video game is what you like, then I salute you. We should all role play more, makes things even more fun. 

 

You see that it was unfair for the defenders because the attackers always win.  I see that it was unfair for the attackers because they were not challenged enough.

 

    Yes the attackers definitely had it rough, I mean all those wins and they still got their crates and goals. Maybe some attackers were too bored? I might buy that. 

 

 While you were having fun and laughing about the easy wins. I was having fun on the loosing team because I was being challenged.

 

    They say pain and pleasure are very close sensations in the mind. Most people really like pleasure, and yes some people really like pain. Are you sure you understand the difference?

 

We both had fun just in different ways so we both benefited from this mode.  there is no reason for you to feel guilty about those wins either.  I chose to be on the defending side.  It was entirely consensual. 

 

Oh boy, what I could do with this but won't. I have to admit, this is not far from two people talking about what stimulates them and then agreeing it is ok either way. I don't really feel guilty about the wins, but someone has to speak the truth of reality. I'm used to dealing with sore and upset losers, and you appear to be a happy one. There are some people in the forums that could use a pep talk from you. Tell them how losing isn't so bad and show them how to cope with it.

 

Prenzlau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Prenzlau, 09 October 2018 - 12:56 AM.

The Zigfreid & Prenzlau Bombing Company

"We're not just delivering the mail..."

 

 

 


Captain_Underpants53 #29 Posted 09 October 2018 - 01:32 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 14487 battles
  • 1,211
  • [H_PUN] H_PUN
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017

So why don't I feel guilty?  I must be a bad person.

 

:D


MSgt, USAF, (ret)

Bobby_Tables #30 Posted 09 October 2018 - 03:44 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4402 battles
  • 1,319
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

I don't carry any guilt from Albion or this latest boondoggle. 

 

I saw early on how the deck was stacked and had a good many bombers that I had ignored for a long time so I learned that mode.  Well... sorta learned it.  With the lopsidedness of the game, I did learn strategies for how to take out targets with one bomb, when to go low and when to stay high - at least in that game mode.  

 

A couple of times I went on the defending side and got frustrated given the lack of tactics and strategy as players chased GA all over the map and ignored the waves of bombers, so back to a bomber or GA.  

 

Perhaps, this is WG's intention:  forcing players who want to win a battle away from the meta of Spitfires so they learn and start to appreciate other modes like GA and bombers.  I don't know their true intentions, but with how lopsided this was for the attacking team, they had to have figured this out in their "testing" or... maybe not.  What happens in Ukraine stays in Ukraine.  

 

Anyway, I carry no guilt.  I did not design this mode, I did not create the massive imbalance, I just saw it for what it was and decided to go with the flow and get some crates and add a few hundred to my gold stash.  Way I figure it, WG was essentially paying me to play the game during the event.  I may as well max out my earnings.  

 

If I ever have a touch of remorse, I will look at my gold balance and any twinge of guilt will quickly fade.    



Perco_lator #31 Posted 09 October 2018 - 05:06 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 11 battles
  • 680
  • Member since:
    08-15-2015

View PostBobby_Tables, on 08 October 2018 - 11:44 PM, said:

I don't carry any guilt from Albion or this latest boondoggle. 

 

I saw early on how the deck was stacked and had a good many bombers that I had ignored for a long time so I learned that mode.  Well... sorta learned it.  With the lopsidedness of the game, I did learn strategies for how to take out targets with one bomb, when to go low and when to stay high - at least in that game mode.  

 

A couple of times I went on the defending side and got frustrated given the lack of tactics and strategy as players chased GA all over the map and ignored the waves of bombers, so back to a bomber or GA.  

 

Perhaps, this is WG's intention:  forcing players who want to win a battle away from the meta of Spitfires so they learn and start to appreciate other modes like GA and bombers.  I don't know their true intentions, but with how lopsided this was for the attacking team, they had to have figured this out in their "testing" or... maybe not.  What happens in Ukraine stays in Ukraine.  

 

Anyway, I carry no guilt.  I did not design this mode, I did not create the massive imbalance, I just saw it for what it was and decided to go with the flow and get some crates and add a few hundred to my gold stash.  Way I figure it, WG was essentially paying me to play the game during the event.  I may as well max out my earnings.  

 

If I ever have a touch of remorse, I will look at my gold balance and any twinge of guilt will quickly fade.    

 

You're a filthy leprechaun with low moral standards. Got it.

"Come find me in the game, tough guy.  We'll see who knows stuff."


Bobby_Tables #32 Posted 09 October 2018 - 05:44 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 4402 battles
  • 1,319
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View PostPerco_lator, on 08 October 2018 - 11:06 PM, said:

 

You're a filthy leprechaun with low moral standards. Got it.

 

Oh go pound sand you little crustacean of the forums.  Your type is not welcome here.  Why, if it were up to me, you would be banned just like your Gouldy account.  :izmena:

 

For heaven's sake, what alt account are your playing nowadays?  We all know the truth.  You cannot let go of the game.  I actually suspect you are Prenzlau, but that is an investigative story for another day. Whatever handle you are using to play nowadays, we will find you, we will kill you, we will NOT stop until you are dead from a thousand .50 cals.  

 

Oh hell, whatever.  I still think you are stealth-playing this game under a nom de guerre.  If not, you should be.  Otherwise you are the ultimate Woodpecker.  Peck Peck Peck to no effect.   



CorvusCorvax #33 Posted 09 October 2018 - 12:36 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2003 battles
  • 1,877
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBobby_Tables, on 09 October 2018 - 05:44 AM, said:

 

  I actually suspect you are Prenzlau,

 

Mind.

 

Blown.

 



NovaTempest #34 Posted 09 October 2018 - 05:26 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2990 battles
  • 227
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

Holy guacamole, batman! Prenzlau has gone Poetic Edda on us again (in all fairness I always wanted to say that about Prenzlau) with walls of finely written soulful insight on the new game mode as well as a historical reference all for the sake of making puppy kickers (I would like to thank SpiritFoxMy for that hilarious phrase) feel utterly filthy, and everyone is jumping into the bandwagon of a party he's caused in this topic - at least from appearances.

 

On a side note I have to give Prenzlau kudos for how much he puts into his initial posts, I almost want to nicely joke about him being our resident Shakespeare-Caliber critic in a complementary way... but I'm digressing.

 

While I do agree with Prenzlau regarding the new game mode, I only agree with him on the "It's a train wreck" aspect. Its not that attackers will basically auto-win, it's that This game mode is 10x more prone to being swayed to lopsided levels by various factors compared to Conquest. I feel this same problem plagued the Invasion mode from westwall.

 

There aren't any angry mobs (that I have seen or read) going on about the Attrition game mode having been a thing because generally people - including myself - actually enjoyed it as a novel game mode, it was different enough from conquest that it didn't seem like the same thing, and it made you have to think differently on how to pull the W. Various factors were less impactful to the Attrition game mode...

 

...But in Invasion... and especially in this game mode...

Ho boy...

Lets just make a list shall we?

Call it the "List of things that can determine the team very likely loses the battle" chart
(I say "very likely" because in some cases somebody could just pull a huge game out of their hat and win in spite of the odds)

Attacking Side Defending Side
  • Too many GAAs or Bombers in the combat group
  • Too few GAAs or Bombers in the combat group
  • Failing to neutralize / Ignoring AA sectors
  • Ignoring the bomber flights themselves
  • Enemy combat group has player aircraft that can tear bombers to shreds in mere moments (Ex.: A Fully Upgraded Me 262 HG II [Guilty of doing this one myself.])
  • Enemy Combat group has high concentration of Heavy Fighters.
  • Enemy Combat group has one or more highly skilled players in specialist heavy fighters.
  • Battle is tier 8+.
  • Too many planes with poor altitude performance in the combat group
  • Ignoring GAAs and Bombers of the attacking combat group completely
  • Enemy combat group Swarms about the bomber waves like a Hornet's Nest
  • Enemy combat group has a competent Sniper player (I am a guilty party in this case as well. Thanks Yak-9.)
  • Enemy combat group has more than one highly skilled player in a specialist bomber / GAA.
  • Battle is below tier 8.
  • Combat group is spread too thin due to in-battle events.
  • Not enough bots go after the Bomber squadrons.

 

These are, at least, my own observations, and based on what I have read from others. I have read some saying that they enjoyed this mode from either side, others loathe this mode. I am in with the folks that look at this escort mode, poked it, and simply said "Meh". I in particular say, "Meh, this could have been considerably better to begin with, considering it feels sort of half-a**ed..."

 

So out of the alternate modes I have participated in so far...
Invasion: 5.5/10

Attrition: 8/10

Escort: 5/10

I am not exactly sure what the devs used as a sort of blueprint for this mode. But if they went off of the period of WWII when huge masses of American/British bombers were being sent over Germany - wiping out factories and other strategic targets once they splintered off - they seemed to model it off of the tail-end of such operations, which is a bit jarring. I think escort would have been a much better game mode with bomber and GAA classes simply excluded, focusing on having the "attackers" in LFs, HFs, and MRFs simply fend defenders off from taking down too many of the bombers.

 

Or they could have simply had allowed GAAs in to knock out AA emplacements along the way so that they would have less of an impact on the Attack flight. Overall I was expecting one thing and found a shell of what could have been. Seems to be the trend with these 'new' game modes other than attrition, which I actually though was pretty novel, though could have used a little more build-up.

but again, all this is just my two cents.

 



Wombatmetal #35 Posted 09 October 2018 - 06:30 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1044 battles
  • 964
  • [H_PUN] H_PUN
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostNovaTempest, on 09 October 2018 - 09:26 AM, said:

Holy guacamole, batman! Prenzlau has gone Poetic Edda on us again (in all fairness I always wanted to say that about Prenzlau) with walls of finely written soulful insight on the new game mode as well as a historical reference all for the sake of making puppy kickers (I would like to thank SpiritFoxMy for that hilarious phrase) feel utterly filthy, and everyone is jumping into the bandwagon of a party he's caused in this topic - at least from appearances.

 

On a side note I have to give Prenzlau kudos for how much he puts into his initial posts, I almost want to nicely joke about him being our resident Shakespeare-Caliber critic in a complementary way... but I'm digressing.

 

While I do agree with Prenzlau regarding the new game mode, I only agree with him on the "It's a train wreck" aspect. Its not that attackers will basically auto-win, it's that This game mode is 10x more prone to being swayed to lopsided levels by various factors compared to Conquest. I feel this same problem plagued the Invasion mode from westwall.

 

There aren't any angry mobs (that I have seen or read) going on about the Attrition game mode having been a thing because generally people - including myself - actually enjoyed it as a novel game mode, it was different enough from conquest that it didn't seem like the same thing, and it made you have to think differently on how to pull the W. Various factors were less impactful to the Attrition game mode...

 

...But in Invasion... and especially in this game mode...

Ho boy...

Lets just make a list shall we?

Call it the "List of things that can determine the team very likely loses the battle" chart
(I say "very likely" because in some cases somebody could just pull a huge game out of their hat and win in spite of the odds)

Attacking Side Defending Side
  • Too many GAAs or Bombers in the combat group
  • Too few GAAs or Bombers in the combat group
  • Failing to neutralize / Ignoring AA sectors
  • Ignoring the bomber flights themselves
  • Enemy combat group has player aircraft that can tear bombers to shreds in mere moments (Ex.: A Fully Upgraded Me 262 HG II [Guilty of doing this one myself.])
  • Enemy Combat group has high concentration of Heavy Fighters.
  • Enemy Combat group has one or more highly skilled players in specialist heavy fighters.
  • Battle is tier 8+.
  • Too many planes with poor altitude performance in the combat group
  • Ignoring GAAs and Bombers of the attacking combat group completely
  • Enemy combat group Swarms about the bomber waves like a Hornet's Nest
  • Enemy combat group has a competent Sniper player (I am a guilty party in this case as well. Thanks Yak-9.)
  • Enemy combat group has more than one highly skilled player in a specialist bomber / GAA.
  • Battle is below tier 8.
  • Combat group is spread too thin due to in-battle events.
  • Not enough bots go after the Bomber squadrons.

 

These are, at least, my own observations, and based on what I have read from others. I have read some saying that they enjoyed this mode from either side, others loathe this mode. I am in with the folks that look at this escort mode, poked it, and simply said "Meh". I in particular say, "Meh, this could have been considerably better to begin with, considering it feels sort of half-a**ed..."

 

So out of the alternate modes I have participated in so far...
Invasion: 5.5/10

Attrition: 8/10

Escort: 5/10

I am not exactly sure what the devs used as a sort of blueprint for this mode. But if they went off of the period of WWII when huge masses of American/British bombers were being sent over Germany - wiping out factories and other strategic targets once they splintered off - they seemed to model it off of the tail-end of such operations, which is a bit jarring. I think escort would have been a much better game mode with bomber and GAA classes simply excluded, focusing on having the "attackers" in LFs, HFs, and MRFs simply fend defenders off from taking down too many of the bombers.

 

Or they could have simply had allowed GAAs in to knock out AA emplacements along the way so that they would have less of an impact on the Attack flight. Overall I was expecting one thing and found a shell of what could have been. Seems to be the trend with these 'new' game modes other than attrition, which I actually though was pretty novel, though could have used a little more build-up.

but again, all this is just my two cents.

 

 

I play mostly bombers and GA. Attrition and Invasion, well, I just don't play when they're up. What I liked about BEM is that I could contribute; the other two modes are basically LF  centric so no reason to play.

 

Not criticizing you or your opinion, just offering a counterpoint



Prenzlau #36 Posted 09 October 2018 - 08:46 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6770 battles
  • 698
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

Holy guacamole, batman! Prenzlau has gone Poetic Edda on us again (in all fairness I always wanted to say that about Prenzlau) with walls of finely written soulful insight on the new game mode as well as a historical reference all for the sake of making puppy kickers (I would like to thank SpiritFoxMy for that hilarious phrase) feel utterly filthy, and everyone is jumping into the bandwagon of a party he's caused in this topic - at least from appearances.

 

    I'm usually the center of attention for various reasons. As General Longstreet once said, "You can't lead from behind". There are many in the forum that need guidance and some inspiration. I like to shake the tree and see what falls out. I'm delighted to have you on the bandwagon, I know a promising erudite when I see one, and you are definitely going places.

 

On a side note I have to give Prenzlau kudos for how much he puts into his initial posts, I almost want to nicely joke about him being our resident Shakespeare-Caliber critic in a complementary way... but I'm digressing.

 

    Keep digressing, it is music to my ears. What only a few have noticed is the effort and commented appropriately. An artillery piece might "fire for effect" while my writing are "written for effect". Sometimes things in my writings are simply taken to literally when I'm actually writing in the abstract. Respect though is a hard thing to earn and I've been told, even warned countless times that some of the regulars in the forum will never care enough to give any respect or even agree. I've not given up however on these wayward souls, and maybe that is what irritates them the most, that I care more then they do. Thanks so much for your kind words. 

 

While I do agree with Prenzlau regarding the new game mode, I only agree with him on the "It's a train wreck" aspect. Its not that attackers will basically auto-win, it's that This game mode is 10x more prone to being swayed to lopsided levels by various factors compared to Conquest. I feel this same problem plagued the Invasion mode from westwall.

 

    I agree in that random teams will always have the possibility to over come and exceed the event parameters. I still believe that it takes an above average effort on the defense team to even have a shot at winning, and yes less effort and skill on the attackers. Basically if the attackers bomb and ground attack just enough and the attacking team's fighters just do enough to occupy the defender's fighters, it is quite a feat to shoot down enough bombers when they come wave after wave. That said, like previous game modes the participants over time adjust and become more adept at finding ways to win. It has to soak in for a while, but if we play that mode again, expect better results. 

 

There aren't any angry mobs (that I have seen or read) going on about the Attrition game mode having been a thing because generally people - including myself - actually enjoyed it as a novel game mode, it was different enough from conquest that it didn't seem like the same thing, and it made you have to think differently on how to pull the W. Various factors were less impactful to the Attrition game mode...

 

    Every bomber should love attrition mode! Always five caps and unlimited spawns, it is a bombers paradise. My favorite of the modes for sure. I agree with your assessment. 

    I appreciate your list and your opinions. Really good work. Thanks for all your sentiments. 

 

Prenzlau

 


The Zigfreid & Prenzlau Bombing Company

"We're not just delivering the mail..."

 

 

 


CorvusCorvax #37 Posted 09 October 2018 - 09:13 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2003 battles
  • 1,877
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBobby_Tables, on 09 October 2018 - 05:44 AM, said:

 

Oh go pound sand you little crustacean of the forums.  Your type is not welcome here.     

 

Hold on, now.  I kind of like there to be a forum pet or houseplant.  Woody fills both of those roles just fine.



wylleEcoyote #38 Posted 09 October 2018 - 09:26 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2216 battles
  • 210
  • [ALAS] ALAS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
I remember Albion.
I was just starting out in the german/american trees (Mustang/P-38/Me109/Stuka were my original goals) and still getting the hang of this thing called "Boom and Zoom".
That was a rough experience.  However; as a result i treasured the dornier (with a 6 point pilot! when most of pilots had less than 3) I won even more.
(my second premium after the XP-58 and the first one i earned)
I did not like that the meta promptly went to #Turn&Burn2Win afterwards. but i have always appreciated a challenge. And while fighting them is at times unforgiving of mistakes it is not necessarily a forgone conclusion. Skill still mattered. I just needed more than they did. And to not get sucked into low alt furballs ...
>>> And i am a better player for it <<<

This new mode was welcomed in my eyes.  I am a competent Heavy Pilot. To the point where I can even make the XP-58 perform reliably.  
So i hopped into lots of heavies and went to town.  Did really well in the 1st phase and then once i got the hang of how to kill bombers i hopped into a mostly stock Dornier 17 and ground out the line in a day and got a premium bomber for that line. then the reset and i tricked out the bombers and won another premium on day 2.
Being one lonely bomber with maybe one little friend to help out if your lucky, sucks.
Cruising along inside a whole flight within the comfortable drone of all those engines. Wrapped up within a nice pile of overlapping fields of fire from all the turrets ... I shot down more planes with defensive fire this weekend than i have since 2.0 was released.  And if i DO get shot down i go down laughing because they wasted their time to shoot down a bomber that wasnt going to score anyway. 


"Nothing but winning , folks. You'll get tired of all the winning, you'll win so much..."

Yes i noticed the weird cricket scores being run up in the opening hours as many folks were still working out the "meta" for the event.
I attribute that to mostly GAA and Bombers having a never ending supply of caps to flip over and over not really aware that the bombers crossing the field is how the score is decided.
Combined with defenders with heavies that were focusing on Bomber Flights exclusively (because thats what heavies do when bomber flights appear in the game) and just barely wiping out the flights (thanks to no AAA) in spite of their focus.

They just had to watch the introductory video for the event, or better read (and ask questions until you understand) the F****ing Patch Notes.
But who does that right?
Certainly not all the players (particularly Light fighters ) going "I cant win. Nothing I do works. Muh WinRate!, GAme is rigged. Bombers are OP. plz Nerf,WG ... This is [edited]"  
Yadda, Yadda, pain and sufferin', bitter salt  

I was not blind to their pain, after all my main go-to planes since 2.0 have all been variations of Fly High. Turn and Die.
Spoiler

in order to be productive.  And it took me weeks of playing to get a handle on it.
And they have had all of a long weekend to "catch up" to a playstyle that is rarely as instinctive as usual meta.

I am aware of the unfairness of it all. And the hopeless futility. 
By the time the reset happened most defenders had just stopped trying or grinding out missions from Operation Orders. Battles that could take 15 minutes were taking 4. 

You have every right to; justification for, your bitter tears of frustration.

They are f*****g delicious. And make for excellent lubricant as i maneuver onto your 6.


Get in a flight. Join an active clan.
This crapmatters and makes all the diference no matter the game mode ...
Set up a voicelink on discord. LISTEN WELL and COMMUNICATE CLEARLY & SUCCINCTLY.  
Learn to work With your Team not just around it.

Get Informed.  

#AdaptOrDie, #GetGud, or ragequit and #UninstallAlready 

Anubis_TD #39 Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:12 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4094 battles
  • 59
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    03-12-2015

I flew Reito and another clan member for about 2.5 hrs purely defence 

We won nearly every game (Reito against us didn't help) but it took massive coordination and your typical fail players on attack to make it happen.

 

While the few attacking games I played were basically mail in wins. (I think only 1 was close).  Problem with the mod is that it requires coordination and the ability to ignore anything but the primary task.

Kill the escorts so you can murder bombers.



Prenzlau #40 Posted 10 October 2018 - 12:45 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 6770 battles
  • 698
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostAnubis_TD, on 09 October 2018 - 04:12 PM, said:

I flew Reito and another clan member for about 2.5 hrs purely defence 

We won nearly every game (Reito against us didn't help) but it took massive coordination and your typical fail players on attack to make it happen.

 

While the few attacking games I played were basically mail in wins. (I think only 1 was close).  Problem with the mod is that it requires coordination and the ability to ignore anything but the primary task.

Kill the escorts so you can murder bombers.

 

    There is a reason why 12 of your HVAR clan members are in the top 25 in the Hall Of Fame for win percentage. Including yourself. Generally speaking players in the upper peaks of the HOF are winners and excellent pilots. You and your mates, as well as other elite pilots are able top overcome slanted scenarios with their skill. Basically, even on defense it is not as hard for you. Most of the players in this game are average or below average, so these events can be quite a challenge. 

    I'm not trying to take anything away from what you have said. Using members of your clan to gauge the difficulty of this event is not the best sample, no offense. That said, elite pilots should have their input because it is another perspective on the event and it certainly has it's value. Thanks for posting.

 

Prenzlau


The Zigfreid & Prenzlau Bombing Company

"We're not just delivering the mail..."

 

 

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users